Mulger bill wrote:Been said before, but if we follow that line to the terminal, there's lots of other activities that will qualify for PPE. How far are you prepared to comply?

But we're not talking about other activities. We're talking about cycling.

I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it's hypocritical or unfair to target cycling in particular for compulsory safety laws, just that since that's what we have, there are other ways of viewing it.

That said...

Xplora wrote:An even cheaper way would be banning all forms of motorised transport above 30kmh. Cars are involved in an ENORMOUSLY greater number of fatalities and injuries.

...that would be disastrous!

For good or ill, Australia's economy and society relies on motorised vehicles, while bicycles are mostly recreational.

I truly wish that was a good argument for a more responsible auto culture, but there simply isn't any serious comparison between mandatory bike helmet laws that mildly inconvenience cyclists, and laws that would severely cripple road transport.

Mulger bill wrote:Why just cycling? If we're serious about the drain on the public purse from catastrophic events, why not legislate protective gear for all?

Because it's a cycling forum, and I have zero interest in discussing the rights or wrongs of MHLs. I made an observation about economics, and that's all, because these debates will go forever once they stray into what could be instead of what is.

Should we legalise pot because booze is more harmful? Or is that an argument for banning booze too?

Should seatbelts be mandatory? Then what about airbags? Or texting while driving?

Nope - when I want to discuss those topics I'll go somewhere else, because here I want to talk about cycling stuff, and the cycling stuff is that helmets are mandatory, and one justification for that is economic.

So the only relevant question is whether that economic outcome is worth the restrictions on the choices of cyclists, and since I don't mind wearing a helmet (and owe my life to one), I don't object to it, which makes me neutral on the topic - not a road safety Brownshirt forcing others to follow my decisions.

Mulger bill wrote:Why just cycling? If we're serious about the drain on the public purse from catastrophic events, why not legislate protective gear for all?

Because it's a cycling forum, and I have zero interest in discussing the rights or wrongs of MHLs. I made an observation about economics, and that's all, because these debates will go forever once they stray into what could be instead of what is.

Regardless whether it is a cycling forum or not we need to consider what is normal legislative behaviour. Your argument does not stand up in the context of how every other activity that has similar levels of risk.

Ross wrote:Yes I believe in MHL but, unlike you (and others in this thread) I am not trying to convert people to my way of thinking and asserting that my views are right and anybody that opposes it must be wrong.

To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

Yes, unfortunately we need laws because, to put it bluntly (and not directing this at anyone specifically), people generally are too stupid to work stuff out for themselves so we need an authority to do it for us. That's why we have speed limits, mandantory seat belt laws, DUI and pretty much most other laws. We need protecting from ourselves (our actions) and need punishing (fines and jail in extreme cases) if we don't obey the law.

Again, I am just clarifying my position on the subject and putting forward points for discussion. Not trying to force anyone to support my POV, though of course not trying to discourage them either. I don't see myself like one of these religious types that knocks on people's doors and tries to force their beliefs on others.

I can surf the web and find dozens, possibly hundreds of "cites" to back up my views as I'm sure the anti-MHL people can as well. I think we should just agree that we have different views on the subject and that neither "side" is right or wrong.

Ross ^^ Am I to take it that your parents, your spouse, your kids, yourself - are all too stupid to make decisions about their welfare? Get rid of Medicare and Centrelink - handing out free money for being out of work and free healthcare for sick people, because the new way forward is to take away their decision making powers! YAY! You can't lose your job or hurt yourself if you aren't allowed to make a decision that could result in those outcomes

It smacks of authoritarianism - and it doesn't work. You don't magically get better decision making from a group of people than another group of people. You only get control.

If you want to make decisions for the common good, you'll ban cars. They kill a lot more people, and you'll find that bike deaths and injuries will plummet because cars are responsible for lots of them.

Ross wrote:I can surf the web and find dozens, possibly hundreds of "cites" to back up my views as I'm sure the anti-MHL people can as well. I think we should just agree that we have different views on the subject and that neither "side" is right or wrong.

But it is your view that seeks to impose your will on others. This removal of a basic freedom that most of the world has.

simonn - there is no group that has a monopoly over what is a good choice, and a bad choice. I'm perfected aware of how much a car accident hurts as a bike rider. I've been cleaned up twice. My understanding of riding is that if I honestly thought I needed a helmet every time I rode, regardless of the situation, because of risk to my HEAD, I would not ride. Ever. My brain is my livelihood.

Too many people are willing to absolve themselves of responsibility for their impact on others. A helmet doesn't prevent hospitalisation with a car accident. A helmet certainly doesn't prevent such a visit on collision with a pedestrian (ped will get destroyed by the bike at 40kph). The MHL is, at its heart, an attempt to pretend that the only risk involved in cycling to bother trying to prevent is catastrophic head injury - rather than focus on the real problem, crappy drivers who are incapable of seeing an object smaller than a CAR on the road

HelmutHerr wrote:So the only relevant question is whether that economic outcome is worth the restrictions on the choices of cyclists, and since I don't mind wearing a helmet (and owe my life to one), I don't object to it, which makes me neutral on the topic - not a road safety Brownshirt forcing others to follow my decisions.

Is it worth it ?In my opnion, no.A restriction on the choice of a cyclist, is a restriction to cyclists.Thats never a good thing, we should promote cycling

If the uptake in cycling would be higher, it would reduce traffic conjestion.That is a fact, cause it is the case in many other countries.

All of you people just assume that you know how other people think. I post this as a person who has only started cycling recently so I know what it felt like seeing MHL as a non bike rider. All I am going to say is IN NO WAY DID MHL AFFECT MY DECISION TO START RIDING. It did not present a negative impression of cycling to me. MHL did not make me think that cycling was dangerous, or i was going to get hit, or I was definately going to fall and get hurt. All of you are overthinking it. I ride because I enjoy cycling and I started riding because I thought I would enjoy cycling.

And I'm not for or against MHL. I don't think about whether MHL is good or bad, I just wear a helmet. It is just that I'm just sick of hearing over and over again that MHL discourages cycling.

Last edited by LM324 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

Xplora wrote:simonn - there is no group that has a monopoly over what is a good choice, and a bad choice. I'm perfected aware of how much a car accident hurts as a bike rider. I've been cleaned up twice. My understanding of riding is that if I honestly thought I needed a helmet every time I rode, regardless of the situation, because of risk to my HEAD, I would not ride. Ever. My brain is my livelihood.

Too many people are willing to absolve themselves of responsibility for their impact on others. A helmet doesn't prevent hospitalisation with a car accident. A helmet certainly doesn't prevent such a visit on collision with a pedestrian (ped will get destroyed by the bike at 40kph). The MHL is, at its heart, an attempt to pretend that the only risk involved in cycling to bother trying to prevent is catastrophic head injury - rather than focus on the real problem, crappy drivers who are incapable of seeing an object smaller than a CAR on the road

...all that said, you would more than likely get a better idea of the risks from a group of medical and road safety professionals (one group), then, well, self selected members of the public who post to a cycling forum (another group), random members of the public who can "I reckon" and "she'll be right" stuff (another group) and even experienced cyclists who may have had an accident where a "helmet saved their life".

Philipthelam wrote:It is just that I'm just sick of hearing over and over again that MHL discourages cycling.

Maybe it didn't discourage you. But is has certainly discouraged many people. To suggest that it doesn't at all is clearly absurd, it is a restriction on the ease the access and comfort or cycling. We can certainly debate the EXTENT of the discouragement, but to try to argue that it doesn't discourage cycling is unreasonable.

simonn wrote:...all that said, you would more than likely get a better idea of the risks from a group of medical and road safety professionals (one group)

You have this all topsy turvy. Why would medical professional have any idea about the risks!? Certainly in their daily work they would encounter the consequences of cycling accidents so they may know all about those. But they are not in any position to gauge the LIKELIHOOD which is just as important in assessing risk as the consequences. Road safety professionals? What and who are they? What knowledge do they have of cycling? Where are they getting the data of cycling participation rates?

simonn wrote:self selected members of the public who post to a cycling forum (another group)

Regular participants in activities generally do have a good ability to assess general risk. In fact overall we aren't too bad at assessing risk. Of course there are numerous studies showing that sometimes we under or over estimate risks, but on the the whole we do a pretty good job. If we didn't then natural selection would have taken its course long ago.

Furthermore what us as INDIVIDUALS care about is not risk facing the 'average' cyclist (whatever that may be) but the risk that we personally face. No 'medical expert' or 'road safety expert' can assess MY individual risk as well as I can. I also participate in skiing, rock climbing and off road mountain biking neither of which require helmet use. Yet I happily wear a helmet in those activities when I feel the need. And as far as the riskiness, mountain biking is by far the most likely where I will end up badly injured. On road riding probably the most likely where I'll end up dead.

Philipthelam wrote:All of you people just assume that you know how other people think .

you do realise that does include YOU !You also assume YOU know how other people think... you do this by saying MHL does not discourage cycling...

Philipthelam wrote: It is just that I'm just sick of hearing over and over again that MHL discourages cycling.

sorry to dissapoint you, but I wil say it again..MHL discourages cycling !

Why is it so hard to respect other people decision not to start riding because of the mhl ??ok fair enough, it did not deter you, good man.But it does have a different effect on others, is this really so hard to understand that other people have a different opinion then your own?Is it really so hard to understand that others dont want to wear a helmet is it really so hard to understand that can be a deciding factor ??

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

The population of these forums is obviously a biased set when assessing whether MHLs discourages cycling. To be on these forums not only categorises you as a cyclist, but a cycling enthusiast.

I personally have certainly not felt overly discouraged from riding due to MHLs. Except on some occasions where no helmet has been available, ie city bike shares. I do remember forgetting my helmet on one occasion and I ended up riding illegally without it, so the law it didn't discourage me.

MHLs no doubt significantly discourage the use of these facilities in Melbourne. Bike share facilities world wide have been extremely successful and uptake is usually by many parts of the population who don't normally cycle. Unfortunately due to MHLs the bike share systems in Australia have been a massive flop.

Philipthelam wrote:It is just that I'm just sick of hearing over and over again that MHL discourages cycling.

Maybe it didn't discourage you. But is has certainly discouraged many people. To suggest that it doesn't at all is clearly absurd, it is a restriction on the ease the access and comfort or cycling. We can certainly debate the EXTENT of the discouragement, but to try to argue that it doesn't discourage cycling is unreasonable.

simonn wrote:...all that said, you would more than likely get a better idea of the risks from a group of medical and road safety professionals (one group)

You have this all topsy turvy. Why would medical professional have any idea about the risks!? Certainly in their daily work they would encounter the consequences of cycling accidents so they may know all about those. But they are not in any position to gauge the LIKELIHOOD which is just as important in assessing risk as the consequences. Road safety professionals? What and who are they? What knowledge do they have of cycling? Where are they getting the data of cycling participation rates?

simonn wrote:self selected members of the public who post to a cycling forum (another group)

Regular participants in activities generally do have a good ability to assess general risk. In fact overall we aren't too bad at assessing risk. Of course there are numerous studies showing that sometimes we under or over estimate risks, but on the the whole we do a pretty good job. If we didn't then natural selection would have taken its course long ago.

Furthermore what us as INDIVIDUALS care about is not risk facing the 'average' cyclist (whatever that may be) but the risk that we personally face. No 'medical expert' or 'road safety expert' can assess MY individual risk as well as I can. I also participate in skiing, rock climbing and off road mountain biking neither of which require helmet use. Yet I happily wear a helmet in those activities when I feel the need. And as far as the riskiness, mountain biking is by far the most likely where I will end up badly injured. On road riding probably the most likely where I'll end up dead.

damhooligan wrote:you do realise that does include YOU !You also assume YOU know how other people think...you do this by saying MHL does not discourage cycling...

Your wrong.If you read my post carefully the whole thing is written in first person. I'm talking about my own experience. I said it didn't discourage myself from cycling.

But sadly, you (like ross) have failed to understand that your personal case study is an attempt to extrapolate an opinion held by other people. You weren't discouraged... great. What about the other 20 million that wouldn't even dream of riding? I spoke to a lady yesterday who lived in Clifton Hills in Melbourne. Surely a better person to ride to work you will not find. Short ride... but it's too dangerous. So she doesn't know how to ride a bike?

Or is the issue that car drivers have made a neutral zone, a road, so terrifying that she couldn't conceive of doing something both legal and safe? The parallel is this - helmet laws give the impression that cycling is so terrifying that you can't go riding without one, an otherwise legal and safe activity. We need to move away from this assumption that someone riding at 20kmh is somehow doing something unsafe. They are not. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

You're on a bike forum. Clearly the laws don't discourage YOU.

Simonn, did you post the strawman for your own post? Medical professionals only see the injuries. Big deal. Where is the campaign to ban ladder use? Backyard pools? Swimming at the beach? Banning weekend sport? Sharp knives? These things create a LOT more emergency department visits than bikes. These professionals are not neutral and they don't apply these principles to all activities equally. Road safety professionals is a good one. ACA/TT trots out some nutter from a driver training school as a road safety expert. You have to be very careful who you want to hand over your decisionmaking to... because control of others is a dangerous thing, more dangerous than letting the great unwashed decide for themselves. History is filled with various leaders who crushed the populace for their own good.

Real question, simon. If I go off and do a uni degree in ergonomics and crash testing, do I suddenly get to veto any opinion you have about health and safety? Do I get the right to inflict legal restrictions on you for your own good, even if it is totally contrary to the principles of a free society? Are you prepared to surrender to my authority because of a piece of paper from a university?

damhooligan wrote:you do realise that does include YOU !You also assume YOU know how other people think...you do this by saying MHL does not discourage cycling...

Your wrong.If you read my post carefully the whole thing is written in first person. I'm talking about my own experience. I said it didn't discourage myself from cycling.

But sadly, you (like ross) have failed to understand that your personal case study is an attempt to extrapolate an opinion held by other people. You weren't discouraged... great. What about the other 20 million that wouldn't even dream of riding? I spoke to a lady yesterday who lived in Clifton Hills in Melbourne. Surely a better person to ride to work you will not find. Short ride... but it's too dangerous. So she doesn't know how to ride a bike?

Or is the issue that car drivers have made a neutral zone, a road, so terrifying that she couldn't conceive of doing something both legal and safe? The parallel is this - helmet laws give the impression that cycling is so terrifying that you can't go riding without one, an otherwise legal and safe activity. We need to move away from this assumption that someone riding at 20kmh is somehow doing something unsafe. They are not. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

You're on a bike forum. Clearly the laws don't discourage YOU.

Simonn, did you post the strawman for your own post? Medical professionals only see the injuries. Big deal. Where is the campaign to ban ladder use? Backyard pools? Swimming at the beach? Banning weekend sport? Sharp knives? These things create a LOT more emergency department visits than bikes. These professionals are not neutral and they don't apply these principles to all activities equally. Road safety professionals is a good one. ACA/TT trots out some nutter from a driver training school as a road safety expert. You have to be very careful who you want to hand over your decisionmaking to... because control of others is a dangerous thing, more dangerous than letting the great unwashed decide for themselves. History is filled with various leaders who crushed the populace for their own good.

Real question, simon. If I go off and do a uni degree in ergonomics and crash testing, do I suddenly get to veto any opinion you have about health and safety? Do I get the right to inflict legal restrictions on you for your own good, even if it is totally contrary to the principles of a free society? Are you prepared to surrender to my authority because of a piece of paper from a university?

Wow long post Your right in that many people don't cycle due to them thinking that it is too dangerous. In fact a study done by the Cycling Promotion fund show that out of 1000 people surveyed 46.4 percent don't cycle because of "unsafe road conditions". The few reasons following (starting from higher percentage) are Speed/volume of traffic, Don’t feel safe riding and Lack of bicycle lanes/trails. The "Don't like wearing a helmet" reason is all the way down at number 13, which BTW is next to the "No place to change/shower" reason. (note this study was about using bikes as transport).

Now the reason I posted that is that I think many people are over exaggerating the effect MHL on the perceived risks/dangers involved in cycling. Yes MHL may give the impression to some that cycling is dangerous, but I believe that it plays a very, very small part in this. The reason that people believe that cycling is dangerous is not (as much) because of MHL but because cycling is actually "dangerous". I mean if you look at all youtube channels of cyclist who have cyclecams at least 90% of their videos are titled "Random number plate number- SMIDSY/Close overtake/ tailgating/some other thing. And if you look at the reason why so many people are now buying cycle cams it is because they will have video evidence if something bad happens to them. To emphasise my point, the first time I ever rode my bike on the road was during a Safe Commuting Course run by Bike north during NSW Bike Week this year. During the first ten minutes of actually riding on the road a big 4WD cut in front of us. Luckily no one was hurt and nothing bad happened. The week after this commuting course I began riding on quiet streets to gain my confidence. When I was going down a slight downhill, (and going the same speed as the surrounding cars) a car just felt the need to overtake me. The car overtook me and didn't give me much room. What's more is there was a roundabout 15m ahead of me, which it had to wait at anyway . The same thing happened a few days later but when I was approaching speed bumps. I was riding in the primary position BTW. Also if you look on the commuting thread you get posts like "Sad, but as a cyclist i too can say its been a good day when only 1 ped and 1 car almost collects me."(page 366)

The main reason why people think cycling is dangerous is because of these things that happen. Until motorists start treating cyclists better (and vice versa) cycling will always be seen as a dangerous thing to do, this will be whether we have MHL or not. The danger impression comes more from the actual things that happen rather than MHL. Making cyclist seem more "safe" by allowing people to ride without helmets won't actually change how "dangerous" it actually is and it is because of these dangerous things that give the dangerous impression of cycling. I think that campaigning for better infrastructure and educating drivers so that these close passes, tailgating etc. do not happen will be a MUCH better option than abolishing MHL in making cycling seem safer and therefore encourage more people to start cycling.

Philipthelam, why do you think cycling is dangerous? Actually, I should rephrase that, why do you think cycling is so dangerous that we have to be mandated to wear helmets? I do ride every day to work on roads and I don't think cycling is particularly dangerous. But I will tell you one thing, education, more facilities and the like, yes they can make it safer and appear safer, but what will really make cycling safer is if there are more cyclists on the road, and that is being held back by MHLs.

I got cut off today, a car pulled out in front of me and then drove down the bike lane. Yes, this sort of behaviour pisses me off, but maybe if bicycles were more normal the car driver would look before assuming that since she was pulling into the bike lane she could assume it was empty. As for the YouTube clips, of course they accentuate the problematic situations, wouldn't get any views otherwise.

To counterbalance your opinion on MHLs, I did not ride a bike until a few years ago. One of the main reasons was the MHLs. I eventually gave up and bought a helmet and stated riding again. For me it was a big turn off, turned me off riding for at least a decade. As someone else pointed out, it is no coincidence that our bike share schemes are failing while internationally bike share schemes are booming. In worse weather, on more congested roads, bike share is booming on London, but not in flat Melbourne with it's temperate climate and wide roads. The only explanation is the helmet laws.

Philipthelam wrote:All of you people just assume that you know how other people think. I post this as a person who has only started cycling recently so I know what it felt like seeing MHL as a non bike rider. All I am going to say is IN NO WAY DID MHL AFFECT MY DECISION TO START RIDING. It did not present a negative impression of cycling to me. MHL did not make me think that cycling was dangerous, or i was going to get hit, or I was definately going to fall and get hurt. All of you are overthinking it. I ride because I enjoy cycling and I started riding because I thought I would enjoy cycling.

And I'm not for or against MHL. I don't think about whether MHL is good or bad, I just wear a helmet. It is just that I'm just sick of hearing over and over again that MHL discourages cycling.

But you see that's the point isn't it? Anyone who cycles in Australia now is not deterred by MHL. If they were... they wouldn't be cycling.

That's why discussing this issue on this forum is largely pointless. Anyone who cycles in Australia is ok with the law. There are a few who do cycle that would like the choice. And then there are a great number of society that don't cycle now that would if there was a cultural shift towards cycling (of which repealing MHL is just one of the first steps).

I've used this example before... my late 20's neice lives 6k from the CBD. She has bikepath from one door to the other. She'll tell you straight out she won't do it because having to redo her hair at work aint going to happen. It's my belief that there are lots of people like this. That's why I'd like this law repealed. It would make is safer for all riders.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.